Regrettably it seems that Forbes has also become a left-wing publication, like Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News. Is this some sort of virus that infects large publications until they sicken and die?
All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.
O'Sullivan was right, but his article announcing his law lamely cited a few examples and just left it. The reason his law is true lies in the Newspeak definitions of ideological labels:
Notice that "objective," "moderate," and "centrist" are classical virtues and are positive labels; likewise "liberal" and "progressive" are American virtues and are positive labels - at least to the extent that their Newspeak definitions have not been realized by the public. OTOH "conservatism" is not an American virtue - drilling for oil or developing genetically modified corn, IOW progress, is something American "conservatives" favor.
- objective: reliably promoting the interests of Big Journalism. (usage: always applied to journalists who are members in good standing; never applied to anyone but a journalist)
- liberal: see "objective," except that the usage is reversed: (usage: never applied to journalists; always applied to anyone but a journalist)
- progressive: see "liberal." (usage: same as for "liberal."
- moderate: see "liberal." (usage: same as for "liberal."
- centrist: see "liberal." (usage: same as for "liberal."
- conservative: rejecting the idea that journalism is a higher calling than providing food, shelter, clothing, fuel, and security; adhering to the dictum of Theodore Roosevelt that:"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena(usage: applies to people who - unlike those labeled liberal/progressive/moderate/centrist, cannot become "objective" by getting a job as a journalist, and probably cannot even get a job as a journalist.)(antonym:"objective")
- "right-wing": see, "conservative."
I just read some of this including your comment to people who are sitting around looking at TV. One of them said “Forbes is a right wing crackpot.” I don’t read it so I have no opinion.
At any rate, the article goes on to say:
“It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree.
In July of 1798, Congress passed and President John Adams signed - An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen. The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.
Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.
And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think its safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.
Heres how it happened.
During the early years of our union, the nations leaders realized that foreign trade would be essential to the young countrys ability to create a viable economy. To make it work, they relied on the nations private merchant ships and the sailors that made them go to be the instruments of this trade.
The problem was that a merchant mariners job was a difficult and dangerous undertaking in those days. Sailors were constantly hurting themselves, picking up weird tropical diseases, etc.
The troublesome reductions in manpower caused by back strains, twisted ankles and strange diseases often left a ships captain without enough sailors to get underway a problem both bad for business and a strain on the nations economy.
But those were the days when members of Congress still used their collective heads to solve problems not create them.
Realizing that a healthy maritime workforce was essential to the ability of our private merchant ships to engage in foreign trade, Congress and the President resolved to do something about it.
Enter An Act for The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.
I encourage you to read the law as, in those days, legislation was short, to the point and fairly easy to understand.”
There are also at least 190 comments below the long article.